Bounded Sets and Centered Sets

One concept that really helps grasp the concept of living and ministering without doctrinal statements is idea of bounded and centered sets. This ideas was initially developed over 30 years ago by missiologist and anthropologist Paul Hebert in his book Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues. His ideas were then popularized by Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch in their book, Shaping of Things to Come, and in the book edited by Darrell Guder, Missional Church.

Below is a brief summary of Bounded and Centered Sets.

Bounded Sets

A bounded set is where we create a boundary, a theological border, a doctrinal fence, and separate those who are inside the fence from those who are out. It is an “us” versus “them” mentality where everyone on the inside is accepted, loved, and welcomed, while those outside the fence are kept away until they can change their beliefs and behaviors to fit the entry requirements.

The pastor and elders and leaders of the church or organization often serve as the gatekeepers in such situations, welcoming those who belong while admonishing those who don’t to “change their ways.”

Bounded Set Illustration

If it helps, you can think of a bounded set as a Western style horse corral. The cowboys build the fence to keep the horses from wandering away. Outside the fence is where wild beasts and rustlers reside, just looking for a chance to kill or steal a horse.

In this situation, the fence serves to protect the property of the cowboys, and also makes it easier for them to feed and care for their herd. Occasionally, a wild animal gets into the corral, where he is summarily shot.

Sometimes, however, the cowboys go out and capture some mustangs from the wild, and bring them back to the corral. But before these wild horses can be introduced to the rest of the herd, they must be broken. They must learn to enjoy the safety of the fence.

Usually, the wild horses are tamed, and introduced to the rest of the herd. Though they may still long for the freedom of the open range, they eventually learn that life inside the corral is pretty good. There are no predators and the food is easy to obtain. It is safe, warm, and clean, and there is plenty of time for food and friendship with other horses.

Bounded Set Churches

One can easily see the many similarities between the image of the horse corral and what is today the most prominent model for church. Doctrinal statements and membership requirements serve as the fence. The Pastor and Elders are the cowboys, who do most of the protecting and providing so that the horses can feel safe, warm, and clean, leaving plenty of time for food and fellowship.

As long as the horses have a good group of cowboys, it’s not a bad deal. The only real cost to the horses is their freedom.

Centered Sets

The other model is a centered set. In a centered set, there are no boundaries. There are no walls. There is no fence. There is no dividing line between “us” and “them,” no rules or guidelines to determine who is “in” and who is “out.” Everyone is loved, welcomed, and accepted, no matter what. Everyone automatically “belongs.”

But how is this different than just a random mass of people randomly milling around? Because of what is at the center. A centered set has no boundaries to keep people out, but it does have something compelling at the center which pulls people in. There are no gatekeepers turning people away, for everyone is on equal footing, being pulled toward the center.

In such a way, while everyone “belongs” in the set, involvement in the set is not based on who has made it through the gate and is now inside the fence, but rather is based on the proximity to the center, and the direction they are moving. Those who are closest to the center, who are clustered around the center, will be the most involved with each other. Those who are further out, but who are also moving toward the center, may also be involved with each other as they are drawn in. But they are not looked down upon for being “further out” for everyone, at some point or another, were also “further out.”

Everybody recognizes that it takes time to be drawn in, and some move faster while some move slower. Some even move backwards. In fact, lots of people do. Many get closer in to the center, and do not like what they see, and so start heading back in the opposite direction. But everybody understand this, because everybody has done it.

The pull toward the center is never so strong that it cannot be resisted, and everyone has resisted and drawn away from the center at one point or another, and so they understand that people sometimes pull back. But no matter how far someone pulls back, at no point do they ever stop “belonging” for there is no outer boundary that can be crossed.

Centered Set Illustration

If a horse corral helped picture the bounded set, a water hole in the African grasslands might be a good picture of a centered set. In many cases, there will be only one watering hole for miles and miles in any direction. This means that animals that live in the area will never stray too far from the water, especially in the dry season.

During the rainy season, they may stray further from the hole, but they always know where the water can be found, just in case the rains do not come. And during the dry season, when the rains do not come and the grass withers away and the ground is parched, it is not uncommon to find hundreds of different animals all sharing the same watering hole. Animals that at any other time of year might stay away from each other, or even prey on one another, will live in relative peace and safety near the water hole. Lions, zebras, deer, and birds will drink from the same water, and while the rains are absent, will not stray too far from the water, for they know that the water is their life.

There are no fences to pen them in, and no cowboys to keep the peace, and yet the draw of the water is enough to accomplish both.

Centered Set Churches

While centered sets are not the common way of doing church today, they are becoming more common, and will be, I believe, the predominant model of the future.

People of all backgrounds and beliefs will be welcomed at the table to join in the conversation, to participate in serving the community, to learn from and challenge each other, and to encourage one another to move ever closer to Jesus Christ. In such an atmosphere, there is room for people of all faiths, all backgrounds, all races, and all creeds.

As Frost and Hirsch point out, “In a centered-set church it is recognized that we are all sinners, all struggling to be the best people we can be. But we also believe that the closer one gets to the center (Christ), the more Christlike one’s behavior should become. …No one is considered unworthy of belonging because they happen to be addicted to tobacco, or because they’re not married to their live-in partner” (p. 49). And I might add to this, “…or because they hold to some doctrine which we think is heretical.”

What do you think of these two approaches? What are the benefits or dangers of both? Where else do you see these types of sets in nature or society? Do you think a bounded-set church can become a centered-set?

Join my discipleship group to discover freedom in Christ and the love of God.

Comments

The centered set approach, as opposed to the bounded set idea, works for us. Even though we have not used those terms, we try to live out “centered set”.

It is easy to attempt to make the Kingdom of Heaven an exclusive, private club, with membership rules determined by us. Of course, we think we’re in and everyone who doesn’t meet the membership rules is out. Funny thing – we don’t get to pick who’s in and who’s out, Jesus does.

We’re not afraid of that unmarried couple who is living together. We have no need to exclude them. We choose to include and love them on their journey. That does not mean that we are teaching to it’s o.k. or not o.k. for an unmarried couple to live together. It means that it’s o.k. to accept and love them, and not o.k. to keep them out of the corral.

Most existing bounded set groups would be unable to transition to center set groups, in our opinion. That is why most of these groups will probably no longer exist when my grandchildren are my age.

Also, I am thinking that Jeremy is using the term “church” in reference to a group such as “First Baptist Church” that refers to itself as a church. Even in groups such as those, who try to build a tight corral with high fences, it never works – the “sinners” still make it in, as has been aptly illustrated to me in every “church” of which I have been a part, including by the pastors and elders.

In my thinking, the church is really those who follow Jesus. None of us can ever be sure where another person stands, regardless of what they say. That’s between them and Jesus. My responsibility is to deal with my own sin. I don’t think Jesus appointed me to be a sin inspector of other people’s sins.

Discipleship is supposed to help keep people in check. If you see your brother in sin, you are supposed to assist that brother to get him back on track. The Bible states this. So how can you say that you are only responsible for your own sin? That isn’t the Bible way.

Discipleship is following Jesus. We are siblings in Christ to love and encourage each other, but the damage the church at large has done in their good faith attempts to “keep people in check” is incalculably higher than loving them and entrusting them to Jesus who knows how to reach our hearts. Your statement betrays a lack of trust that Jesus is well able to lead and disciple people, without our help. In fact, he was very clear: LOVE GOD, LOVE OTHERS. Everything else will fit into that.

1 Corinthians 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

**without means outside, within means inside.

Those who are outside:

1 Corinthians 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Who is the wicked? Verse 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

What are we supposed to do with them?

To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Centered churches don’t seem to focus on righteousness. They say that they focus on being “Christ like”, but that can’t be true if righteousness is thrown out the window. Sin is supposed to bring guilt, and if there is no guilt in sin, there is no repentance. The Law is the knowledge of sin. And if there is no repentance, then there is no righteousness.

Centered Churches center on inclusive rather than exclusive. The Kingdom of God is not given to unrepentant sinners. Repent means to turn away. We all struggle with sin, but we must be aware of the sin and the sin must produce guilt. If it does not, then you are not part of the group.

If no one is taught the law, then no one knows what sin is.

The description of centered churches, in which all faiths can come to the table, does not fit the description of those belonging to the Kingdom of God, but to the Kingdom of self. A Self Centered Church.

The Greek word translated ‘fornicator’ in 1 Corinthians 5 is ‘pornos’….and according to Strong’s, ‘pornos’ means ‘male prostitute’…considering the times and location, probably had to do with the Greek temple prostitutes…sex for religion…

You have thrown out a lot of points there. Too many to adequately address in a blog comment.

1 Corinthians 5 is a notoriously troublesome chapter. But notice that whatever Paul is saying, he adamantly tells the church that he does not want them to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, or with the covetous, extortioners, idolaters, and the like (v. 10).

Sure sounds like a centered set to me.

And regarding the brother who is sexually immoral, notice that sexual immorality is not the only sin Paul mentions. He also mentions those who are covetous, idolaters, revilers, drunkards, and extortioners (v 11).

We must not and cannot single out those who are sexually immoral and ignore the others.

Yet if we are going to consistently apply Paul as you have suggested above, I don’t think there are many people in the entire world that we can keep company with as almost everyone falls into one or more of these sins on a regular basis.

So if we use 1 Corinthians 5 to justify a bounded set approach for who we can have company with, the only person who will be “inside” the circle is the self-righteous person who thinks they are sinless.

Well, I disagree with both of you and Sam. The Apostle Paul gave instructions. That is how God deals with it, is thru his people. If you aren’t following the instructions, how can you be called God’s People? Unrepentant sinners are not part of the group. Jesus is the shepherd, gathering his sheep. His sheep hear his voice.

In order to preach the Good News, you must first preach the bad news…The Law. That is what gives the good news credence. If these people do not want to heed the law, God is not dealing with them. Heeding the law brings a repentant and contrite heart. If it doesn’t, then you cannot be part of the group in the coral.

So is there anyone in your church who is covetous? If so, you better kick them out.

Same goes for anyone who is argumentative (revilers), who drinks too much (drunkards), who put anything in the world above God (idolatry), and anyone who uses their business or power for extra income for themselves (extortion).

Secondly, the only way that we can spread the gospel is to be in the company of sinners, but not to partake and include the sinners in with the righteous. What does light have to do with dark? Nothing. You cannot have darkness in the light.

The first words of Jesus when his ministry began was “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.” Does a Centered Church focus on that? Sure doesn’t sound like it.

If Centered churches want to be Christ-like, those words need to be taught. You cannot repent until you know the law, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Repent is the first step to belonging in the group. God deals with people AFTER repenting, Where is the repenting of the sin? Where is the teaching of the law so that people know what sin is? Where is the guilt?

I see too many churches that only wish to be “Christ-like” based on the Sermon on the Mount, and forget that Jesus discussed a lot more than that.

I grew up in the hippie days. Love, Joy, Peace. That is not the Jesus I read in the Bible. The Jesus of the Bible brought a sword to divide people, to set variance against people.

The feel good Jesus is not in the Bible. Jesus paid a price because he loved us. I see too many people in blogs such as this that really don’t get it.

This post is part of a much longer series where I am reimagining church.

So a Centered Set would not be a church like anything you seem to be imagining.

Centered set …groups?… communities?… people?… typically don’t have a building, a budget, a staff, a doctrinal statement, a mission’s team, a children’s program, or any of the typical trappings of what most people think of as “church.” All of those thing create walls and boundaries which centered sets find unnecessary to live life and serve others like Jesus.

Regarding the rest of your statement about Jesus, I used to believe the same way you do, and now find the exact opposite of that kind of Jesus in the Bible. I emphatically reject a Jesus like that. If you think Jesus is not about love, joy, and peace, but about dividing people, I could not disagree more.

By the way, I am not into doctrinal statements either. I look to the bible. For example, I do not buy into the Catholic doctrines that God is three persons. I believe that Jesus is God alone. I do not buy into the five points of Calvinism, and I don’t believe that babies go to hell. I am not a Lutheran, either. I am non-denominational.

Edward, Jesus did not come to judge the world but to save it through him (John 3:17). To do what you’re saying requires us to judge, which humble people admit is far above our pay grade. But Christ loved the wretched, the outcast, the sinner, the “least of these.” That’s how we are to be like Christ.

Jeremy, yes there is people in my church that is covetous, etc., etc., etc. You missed my point. My point is, does that covetous person feel guilt for being covetous? Is that person acting out that covetous? Is there anyone discipling this covetous person to help keep him in check? Does this covetous person have a contrite heart in regards to his covetous. Does this person ask for forgiveness for his covetousness?

Who is discipling this person? Who is teaching this person? Is sin taught? Is the effects of sin taught? Is repentance taught?

“People of all backgrounds and beliefs will be welcomed at the table to join in the conversation, to participate in serving the community, to learn from and challenge each other, and to encourage one another to move ever closer to Jesus Christ. In such an atmosphere, there is room for people of all faiths, all backgrounds, all races, and all creeds.”

I guarantee that once you start preaching the truth, you will offend people. The truth does that. It sounds to me that you don’t wish to offend anyone. People are offended at the name of the REAL Jesus. Once you start preaching the REAL Jesus, attendance goes down.

Edward – We’re not admitting sinners (or anyone for that matter) into the kingdom. Yes, we try to follow Jesus. Jesus is our Rabbi. In certain things we try to do what Jesus does. But in others we do not, because certain things are reserved for Jesus alone – creation, forgiving sins, judgment, separating the goats from the sheep.

I too have been part of groups (“churches”) who thought that it was their job (or the pastor’s or elders’ or whatever) to pass judgment and decide who is in and who is out of the Kingdom. I think that is a total misunderstanding, and a usurping of Jesus’ authority. I see that as akin to someone deciding that they can forgive someone else’s sin. Such ideas are outrageously presumptive. Such activities are reserved for the Son alone, not for created beings.

We all know that we can make decisions about who is in and who is out and be very, very wrong. I could write a long book on examples. Jesus knows what we do not and for Jesus alone is reserved the right to judge and decide who is in and who is not.

As to who may be part of the group, that is up to the group. I know of many groups who are very exclusive, meaning they exclude anyone who does not meet their standards, such as you need to be at least upper middle class, white and live in a good neighborhood to be part of the group. This may not be written in their doctrinal statement or bylaws, but it is their practice.

We’re talking about including any and all in our “set”, which is not the same thing as who is “saved” and who is not.

There are many ways to “preach” the Gospel. You probably think in terms of sermons. Sometimes that works, but often it does not. (I know people who have heard literally hundreds or even thousands of sermons, give the impression that they are “saved”, but privately admit that they are not, and do not want to be.) We have discovered much more effective ways of “preaching”.

Thank you for having a respectful conversation. It is o.k. if we see things differently. That does not make one of us right and the other wrong. It just means that we look at these things differently. For both of us our questions need to be: “Am I part of the Kingdom? What am I doing about the sin with which I struggle? How can I best follow Jesus? How does Jesus tell me to relate to the other people who cross my path on this journey?”

Sam, I respectfully disagree. The way that God deals with “HIS” people is through the word. If no one is PREACHING the word of God, then God cannot deal with that person.

Faith comes by hearing the word of God. That means the whole story, not just tid bits, not just throwing a bone here and there.

Jeremy states that he rejects the Jesus that the Bible describes, the one who indicated that he did not come to bring peace, but a sword to divide and put variance against people because of his name. That tells me that Jeremy is not a part of God’s People, the Kingdom of God. Jesus is more than a Rabbi. Jesus is not just a nice guy that said some nice things. He expects us to preach his word…all of it.

1. Preach the Law 2. Preach Jesus for the remission of sin. 3. Receive the Holy Spirit

And we do have authority to forgive sins. Matthew Chapter 18, and don’t forget the Lords Prayer as well.

One final note, Katherine, is that if you reject Jesus, then you will be judged by the law that you say does not exist. Jeremy seems to want to bypass the law, and go on a journey. Well, his journey will land him straight to hell, as he rejects the Jesus of the Bible. He is creating a Jesus in his image because he doesn’t like the Jesus of the bible.

This is what is predicted in the Bible, for those who don’t want sound doctrine, they will find teachers that will have itching ears that will preach what they want them to preach. I feel sorry for Jeremy, and his followers.

Edward, I never said the Law does not exist. I said we are under a different covenant. Romans 2 is an interesting read. “…it is the goodness of God that leads to repentance…” It has been my experience (just tonight, in fact, in a beautiful communion service) that people become broken and genuinely heartfeltly repentant when they get a whiff of how much God loves them – and how He expressed that love than ever do under condemnation.

However, I suspect that we will be spinning our wheels on this issue. I used to believe the way you do. It was how I was raised. Jesus – the one I know intimately – the one who has saved me and goes on saving me – he led me out of that way of seeing. And it was not an easy departure. You can call me whatever name you think you must. It will not alter what He has taught me and shown me. I see the whole Bible through a different lens – a lens of freedom in Him. And per Galatians, I will not go back from the hard won, high priced freedom.

What are you telling me? Are you saying that you repented of sin without anyone preaching to you what sin is?

I just love all those who say such things as “I used to believe as you do” scenario’s. I don’t believe those things in vain. This is what the Bible states. You people just seem to want to throw the bible out the window, and do things your own way. That is not the bible way.

You have a warped sense of what the Apostle Paul describes as Freedom.

Yes, you are right. We do have a different set of lenses. Mine is based on the Word of God. Yours is based on???????

I can guarantee you, Following a person (Jeremy) BOASTS that he rejects a Jesus that said of himself that he came not to send peace but a sword, that is dangerous, and you are playing with fire following a nut case like that.

This man that you follow preached what he no longer believes! And you follow that? You are not following Jesus…you are following a nut named Jeremy pretending to know Jesus…albeit a different Jesus.

The Devil himself changes into an angel of light, and he is fooling you.

I stand by what I said about the law. Preach the law. For by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Edward, again, I think further debate would be fruitless as I don’t see either of us being persuaded by the other. I do want to clarify at least one misconception, though. I do not ‘follow’ Jeremy. I came across his blog a few months ago. I like some of what he says and disagree with some. *shrug* We are both still learning. So lay your fears to rest concerning my ‘following’ Jeremy off a cliff, so to speak. I’ll only dive off a cliff if Jesus leads me too. 🙂

Oh, and you are not under a new covenant until you have satisfied the requirements of knowing what sin is based on the law. You CANNOT repent until someone preaches the law to you. For by the law is the knowledge of sin.

If someone preaches the law to you, and you reject the law, you are NOT under the new covenant.

If someone preaches the law to you, and they reject Jesus, you are NOT under the new covenant.

In both cases above, that rejection automatically puts you under the law, the old covenant. When you die, you are judged by the law that you rejected. If you die, you are judged under the law, because you rejected Jesus.

Rejecting a Jesus that said of himself that he did not come to send peace IS REJECTING JESUS, and that puts Jeremy UNDER THE LAW by which he will be judged.

He is not under the new covenant, because he doesn’t believe in that kind of Jesus. He is under the old covenant, not the new.

He is like the atheist that states, “WHAT KIND OF A LOVING GOD WOULD…(FILL IN THE BLANK)?

If Jeremy really loved people, he would be straight with them and tell them the truth of HEAVEN AND HELL, WHO GETS TO GO TO EITHER PLACE, AND HOW. He is not interested in that, because that causes division.

Edward, I operate this blog under a Centered Set paradigm, which is why I continue to let comment.

If I operated it under a Bounded Set paradigm, I would block you and your comments for your rude and demeaning behavior which does not reflect Jesus whatsoever.

However, while I will not permanently block you, I must ask you to practice some self-discipline and behave courteously toward others in this blog community.

In a centered set conversation, all are allowed to speak and have their say, even dissenting voices such as yours.

But when one person starts calling others names, belittling others in the conversation, and making demands of others (all of which you are doing), they may be asked to remain quiet for a while so that others can have a chance to speak.

Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. He did not waver, he did not question, he did not change his mind.

Even when God challenged his belief by asking for him to sacrifice his son, he obeyed, because he believed.

You do not believe what you once preached. Your blog states that in numerous places. You wavered, you are questioning the truthfulness of scripture, you have changed your mind.

That puts you in the Catogory of non-believer. Non-believers believe in Jesus. Non-believers have a quest to be Christ-like. But they are non-believers nonetheless.

This is why there is a “them vs. us”, exclusive, rather than inclusive. Believers, vs. Non-believers. Black, and white, bound and centered, truth and lie, smoking or non-smoking, light and dark, man and woman, Coke and Pepsi, Quater Pounder or Whopper, Pizza Hut or Domino’s, etc., etc.

I have no problem of you blocking me. Do what you have to do. It won’t break my heart any. I didn’t belittle anyone. I call a spade a spade. If that is offensive to you, then do what you think you need to do.

Very good explanation. I just learned about this recently and it affirms and helps guide me in working with people. It helps clarify for me what I am to be about as a missional person. I’m less interested in getting someone through the door of some building. In fact, I have almost zero interest in that unless there’s something about what goes on in that building that really helps my friend walk more closely with God. My focus is on walking through life toward Christ with people.

I’m excited about sharing this concept with our Living Sent Lives discussion group, in contrast to Andy Stanley’s “invest and invite” approach to evangelism, which calls for investing in friends lives and then inviting them to church or an event. That’s an OK approach but it seems designed for people who don’t know how to share their faith or walk with someone to Jesus.

Yes, I agree. In the past we tried the “invest and invite” type of thing. Most people, however, smell that from a long way off. Even those that do respond often don’t respond well when they figure out that people at the church or church event either don’t accept them or want to make them their “project”.

In the neighborhood events that I’ve written about on Graceground we have two neighbors that have an agenda for everyone else. One lady tries to get people to go to her church. One couple tries to get people interested in their multi-level marketing business. So far neither the lady or the couple have had any success.

On the other hand, a surprising number have initiated conversations with us (my wife and I) about Jesus, heaven and other spiritual topics as we walk together with them in our journeys toward Jesus.

🙂 Sam, that is interesting. It seems to me, the church as it is seen today has become a club…maybe not so much a multi-level thing as a competitive business thing. We have more new members than you…and they are more concerned with you signing the membership card so you can be counted in the roster than they are about whether you actually know Jesus – more concerned that you say the right thing and make them look good than if you are actually doing well….

Katherine, our experience has been similar. In our last church, we kept track of who was there. We knew everyone by name (hundreds of people).

I reported at a meeting of the staff and leadership that in the past year, we had lost almost 15% of the congregation. The head of what many churches would call the elders said that was not a concern, because $ giving had not dropped. One staff member pounded the table and shouted “cut the dead wood”, as another pounded the table and repeatedly shouted “preach it brother”. Their only concern was how much money was coming in.

In all fairness, there are hundreds of thousands of churches in the USA. Surely there must be those who care about people and care whether people actually know Jesus.

This is interesting, but I’m not sure there’s a big difference in this distinction in practice. It’s more of a conscious attitude than a doctrinal distinction. Bounded set churches can be just as welcoming of outsiders; people can feel isolated in centered set churches. I’ve seen both. I don’t think you can really get away without doctrine in either case. In the centered set, doctrine in implied in our ideas of who Jesus is, what it means to be christlike, whether someone is moving away from or toward the center, whether someone is not moving at all (stuck). where the center is, who is close enough to the center to exercise leadership, etc. Most of what you would call bounded set churches do not impose as sharp of a boundary as depicted in the illustration. Their evangelistic, and discipleship/catechism methods offer people ways into the church that are more graduated. Unless we’re talking about what most people think of as “cults,” I think this distinction, in practice, is one without a meaningful difference.

The distinction is really more about how people are viewed who differ with us in their doctrine. Yes, doctrine is still involved, but bounded sets restrict fellowship and entry only to those who agree. All others are outsiders. Centered sets still have the doctrine, but invite those who disagree into the conversation.

I used to see the world much like Edward and others…and I can find the scriptures to match them just as he did.

But after a long journey of deconstruction and questioning, I was encountered with Christ’s presence at a retreat called the Walk to Emmaus, and I realized that though I thought He had abandoned me, he had not and in fact loved me just the same as always.

After that, I was able to see the scriptures in a new light, one full of freedom, hope, renewal, and grace. It’s funny. Looking back, I realize more and more how human the god of my past was. Completely tribal, focused on punishment, fixated on torment and judgment of anything different from Him.

But now I see, those scriptures so often used to exclude…they were usually spoken to the religious elite, not the “sinners” everyone seems to panic about so much.

God is big enough and powerful enough to work on everyone in his timing. We can surrender our need to control others and be right and allow the grace and love of God to work in those around us and OURSELVES at HIS pace, not ours.

Bless you for writing this. It has helped me understand why “church” has been so hard for me lately.